Tikun Olam-תיקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place

Tweet

Trying to parse the various Kabuki-like statements coming from Condi Rice and the Israelis and Palestinians about their three-way talks yesterday produces an odd feeling of diplomatic whiplash. But the upshot of the deal is that essentially nothing happened. Which in terms of the Mideast conflict always portends worse to come. Like a shark who stops moving, when things don’t progress in the Mideast they usually proceed to bloodshed. All of this means that Condi’s gamble in holding these talks didn’t pay off. In fact, it was a bust. Here’s the NY Times’ lead sentence:

The first peace talks in six years between the leaders of Israel and the Palestinians ended without any apparent concrete progress beyond an agreement to meet again.

The Jerusalem Post was a bit stronger:

Palestinian Authority officials described Sunday’s three-hour meeting between US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah as “difficult.”

The Washington Post tried to put a brighter face on the result with its headline, Rice Optimistic Following Israeli-Palestinian Meeting. But it’s lead also noted the lack of progress:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Monday hosted talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders that touched on ways to build an independent Palestinian state, but the summit appeared to yield little except a commitment to meet again.

But as you might expect, to get the juiciest coverage you have to go to straight to the source, the Israeli press. Here’s Ynetnews’ characterization:

Olmert told Abbas ‘you cheated me,’ senior PA official says

Palestinian official who attended Jerusalem summit hosted by Rice says Israeli premier told Palestinian leader, ‘you cheated me by reaching unity deal with Hamas’; Abbas responded by saying, ‘you gave me nothing and didn’t keep your promises,’ official adds.

Accusations and mutual recriminations. That was the true outcome of this “summit” which failed so miserably that by its end it was merely called “efforts” by Rice’s people (“the official statement read by Ms. Rice referred to them simply as “efforts”–NYT).

What this whatever you wish to call it proved is the utter bankruptcy of a U.S. approach that comes at the problem from purely one side. The U.S. and Israel are virtual Siamese twins in their views of all the major issues. As proof, take our position vis a vis the Mecca accords:

“Rice made it clear that the US and the rest of the international community would boycott any government that does not meet these conditions,” a senior PA official told The Jerusalem Post. “She also said the US administration was not happy with the national unity agreement that was reached between Fatah and Hamas in Mecca.”

To which, Abbas rightly pointed out:

His top priority was to prevent civil war in the PA territories and that he had no choice but to strike a deal with Hamas…

According to Erekat, Abbas also stressed that his top priority at this stage is to prevent internal fighting and to restore law and order to PA-controlled areas. “These are very important issues for the Palestinians,” Abbas reportedly told Rice. “The unity government is needed to prevent internal strife and end tensions between Fatah and Hamas.”

Here’s the real “kicker” for me:

Another top PA official expressed deep disappointment with the results of the Rice-Abbas talks. “It was a tough meeting,” he said. “Rice actually reprimanded Abbas for signing the unity government deal with Hamas. The US has endorsed the Israeli position regarding the Mecca deal, and this is regrettable.”

She actually had the temerity to reprimand Abbas for determining what was best for his own political party and nation. If this doesn’t show our policy is somewhere out in left field, then nothing will.

For the U.S., there is no recognition of the political conditions facing your opponent (and make no mistake we are largely acting as the Palestinians’ opponent). You’re facing an incipient civil war in Gaza? So what, none of our concern. You meet our arbitrary conditions for negotiation or you’re outa luck, buddy.

Another aspect of this that boggles the mind is the slap in the face we are giving King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia who has placed enormous prestige on the line in hosting the Mecca parley and shepherding it through to completion. The U.S. has precious few Arab governments with whom is has halfway decent relations. Saudi Arabia has been one. Would we jeopardize the few shreds of credibility we have left with the Saudis by throwing ice water on these accords? Apparently so. You’ve just gotta scratch your head in wonder.

Try as she might, Rice couldn’t quite muster the words to turn this into the success she wanted the world to believe it was:

“The president and the prime minister agreed that they would meet together again soon,” Ms. Rice said. “In that vein, I expect to return soon.” But she expects that the two men will meet again “within weeks, not months,” even if it is without her.

The Israelis immediately went to work with their Alice in Wonderland-like (“a word means what I want it to–no more, no less”) linguistic jiu jitsu:

American officials said that Mr. Olmert and Mr. Abbas have agreed to meet again in the next few weeks. But a senior Israeli official said that while contacts between the two men would continue, including phone calls, the next face-to-face meeting may not come so quickly. “Soon is the future, and not necessarily the near future,” the official said.

Or to put it another way: “How’s ‘never?’ Is ‘never’ good for you?”

Ever indefatigable, Rice doesn’t give up easily:

Ms. Rice will probably make her next visit after the new government is formed, perhaps in mid- to late March.

Why? What will be different then from conditions now? Will Hamas suddenly embrace Olmert? Will the U.S. suddenly come to the realization that it has treated Abbas and the Palestinians shabbily all these years? Of course not. Nothing will change though things may’ve gotten worse. That’s always a distinct possibility in this neck of the woods.

There’s one boker tov (literally “good morning”–a derisive phrase meaning “you just realized that??”) moment in the NY Times story which I couldn’t help but shake my head at:

Ms. Rice and her aides now seem to understand, one senior American official said, “the status quo here means deterioration.”

Gee, dya think??

Today, on Warren Olney’s To the Point, Yossi Alpher derided the thin reed to which Rice clings in rejecting the unity government–its rejection of the three conditions set down by the Quartet. As for renunciation of violence:

While it made sense [initially] to demand a pledge to end violence, the current ceasefire, however sporadic and incomplete, is no worse than previous ones periodically violated by Fateh.

As for recognition of Israel:

It was presumptuous to demand of Hamas recognition of Israel when Jerusalem has never insisted that Arab countries offer this concession prior to signing a peace treaty with it.

He went farther on the radio show, noting that in previous negotiations with neither Egypt, Jordan or the PLO did Israel first demand recognition BEFORE an agreement was reached.

And as for recognizing previous agreements:

Hamas has now undertaken to “respect” them…

Alpher correctly notes the ambiguity of the phrasing and the fact that we can’t know whether Hamas will honor this wording when push comes to shove. But it’s a greater commitment than before Mecca.

So it seems only a matter of time before the U.S. and even Israel’s three conditions crumble in the dust. Possibly constructive action by the Europeans by which they gradually reopen contacts with the PA will start this process rolling. One can only hope the EU will have more realism and common sense in their approach to this matter. We’ve got to cut through all the rigamarole that prevents progress. Conditions which have outlived their usefulness must be cast aside.

Would I prefer that Hamas honor the three conditions explicitly before negotiations begin? Sure. Would I make this a deal-breaker? No way. Let’s see if the EU agrees with me or not.